Until recently, an alarming number of even the largest manufacturers have relied on basic spreadsheet software and whiteboards to manage administrative and processing functions.
However, the harsh financial realities of a recession are clearly making more advanced programmes, which promise time and cash savings, more attractive to some.
A key area for which this holds true is labour planning and scheduling software.
The latest tools are not just about managing payroll accurately.
One of their major benefits is increased, instant online visibility of staff deployment and availability.
At the cutting edge, they can achieve optimised scheduling.
Simply put, people with the right skills can be matched to the right jobs and shifts at a moment's notice.
That's allowing for last minute orders, sickness and holidays, making the most of the talent pool.
You couldn't get a more ringing endorsement for such systems than the fact that Coca-Cola Enterprises (CCE) has adopted one for its Wakefield plant in West Yorkshire.
With nine production lines operating every hour of the year, it is the firm's biggest factory in the world.
"The business was managing line production, shift patterns and staff resourcing manually using spreadsheets, which worked to a point but was far from ideal," according to Steve Platt, CCE European learning and development manager, who says the Production Digital Logistics Manager (DLM) it installed took just four months to implement and has been running for six months.
He adds that "the system has already demonstrated a return on investment through better use of management time and has enhanced the overall site awareness of, and communication process regarding, workforce flexibility".
In particular, the new system has reduced slow working or line stoppages caused when workers with the right skill sets could not be found fast enough.
Internet application developer Eleventeenth worked with the soft drinks giant on the project.
Director Phil Atkinson says of the Production DLM system: "It has saved a substantial amount of money from reduced overtime and agency fees by better utilisation of the labour force.
Team leaders and operations managers log into one place and they can see staff and their skills and can produce all kinds of reports."
Premier Foods, Northern Foods and Greggs and are now also exploring the package, he says.
Eleventeenth's system enables production scheduling to take place much more flexibly and quickly, says Atkinson.
"For example, Greggs may be making 30,000 donuts on a given day.
It can choose to make 20% now, rekit the line for something else, then come back to that order later."
Production DLM includes hygiene scheduling so managers can ensure they are complying with environmental health legislation and procedures, he says.
"If you're facing a British Retail Consortium (BRC) or accountancy audit you can say, 'this person was on that shift at that time'."
The system works on a tiered access model, so different layers of management have steadily increasing ability to tap into data.
At the same time, things don't have to be overly compartmentalised.
With the level of visibility involved, shift managers can recommend staff to other managers for their shifts.
Experts in this field agree that determination to reduce running costs is driving more processors to explore such software.
"We're seeing everybody take another look at this because of the economy," says Piers Freeman, senior director for business development, Europe, Middle East and Africa, for Infor, which offers a labour planning package called Workbrain.
But many firms still raise standard objections to buying into these systems.
First, there's the time and cost of projects.
Then there's the general resistance to change.
Plus, there's the day-to-day practicalities how will the software and hardware be serviced?
What happens if the software crashes and servers pack up?
Some of these excuses may have been valid when systems were in their infancy and packages required a complete overhaul.
Now, teething problems are being overcome, the time spent rejigging processes is being reduced and costs are falling.
"Systems could cost millions a few years ago, but not in the modern era," says Barney Quinn, chief executive of Workforce Systems, based in Bolton.
"You're talking hundreds of pounds at the small end to hundreds of thousands if you're a very big player indeed."
Freeman says in any case a major initiative may not suit a small business, where returns are likely to be smaller.
"If you've got an escort or a small family car, there's probably no point in putting on a high performance carburettor."
Realising how little businesses can risk on capital expenditure in the current climate, Workforce Systems offers Software As a Service (SAS).
The firm can manage all software and hardware for customers, who dial into the system remotely.
They can then test it in one area before committing further.
This type of facility can be implemented in anything from five to 10 days for small firms to 50 days for industry giants.
"As times get tougher, people want to get up and running quickly," says Quinn.
"We charge pounds per week, month or year per person.
The price varies depending on the number of employees on the system.
People tend to go for four to 10 week trials."
Quinn says demand for SAS from his company was flagging in the first half of 2009, but adds: "Since June we've seen a significant turn around.
People know they have got to save money."
Online labour planning and scheduling has can do that in spades, he says.
"It's not unusual for businesses to save several percent of their labour costs anything from 3-15%; there's no average."
Return on investment can be achieved in months, not years, he adds.
There are several ways to achieve savings.
Quinn says many food processors are interested in elements such as labour standards, which focus on how long particular tasks take.
Managers using the system may find tasks taking longer than expected and may end up 'tidying up' work areas, reducing the time taken to get from a to b in a plant.
As a result, overtime pay could be cut.
Or more workers could be allocated to certain tasks, speeding them up.
Alternatively, it may emerge that workers are taking less time to perform some tasks than managers thought, but are being paid as if they are taking more time.
Optimised scheduling can cut shift hours, with further consequences, says Freeman.
"You can take the temperature down in a plant when it's not being used."
Quinn admits employees might resist adopting such systems for fear efficiency improvements might do them out of a job.
But he says it's just as likely that by reorganising personnel, some who are being overworked could end up working more reasonable hours.
As for systems failing, he says: "With our system, the downtime is 17 hours per year, and most of that is planned it's very rare."
But it's important to recognise that such systems don't run themselves, says Freeman.
True, they allow for more accurate payroll processes, meaning people have far fewer errors to handle.
But this isn't the whole story.
"You can achieve a dramatic saving in administrative headcount, but many people will just be used in a different way."
In addition, it's worth remembering that the benefits of such systems accumulate over time, he says.
Initially, they can supply the data required to improve efficiency.
But it must still be analysed, the right measures must be taken and then efficiencies can be tweaked again, allowing for continuous improvement.
FM